A Bayesian approach for individual-level drug benefit-risk assessment
Corresponding Author
Kan Li
Merck Research Lab, Merck & Co, North Wales, Pennsylvania
Kan Li, Merck Research Lab, Merck & Co, 351 North Sumneytown Pike, North Wales, PA 19454.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSheng Luo
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
Search for more papers by this authorSammy Yuan
Merck Research Lab, Merck & Co, North Wales, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorShahrul Mt-Isa
Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences, MSD, London, UK
School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Kan Li
Merck Research Lab, Merck & Co, North Wales, Pennsylvania
Kan Li, Merck Research Lab, Merck & Co, 351 North Sumneytown Pike, North Wales, PA 19454.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorSheng Luo
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
Search for more papers by this authorSammy Yuan
Merck Research Lab, Merck & Co, North Wales, Pennsylvania
Search for more papers by this authorShahrul Mt-Isa
Biostatistics and Research Decision Sciences, MSD, London, UK
School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
In existing benefit-risk assessment (BRA) methods, benefit and risk criteria are usually identified and defined separately based on aggregated clinical data and therefore ignore the individual-level differences as well as the association among the criteria. We proposed a Bayesian multicriteria decision-making method for BRA of drugs using individual-level data. We used a multidimensional latent trait model to account for the heterogeneity of treatment effects with latent variables introducing the dependencies among outcomes. We then applied the stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis approach for BRA incorporating imprecise and heterogeneous patient preference information. We adopted an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm when implementing the proposed method. We applied our method to a case study to illustrate how individual-level benefit-risk profiles could inform decision-making.
Supporting Information
Filename | Description |
---|---|
SIM_8166-Supp-0001-SIM-18-0069.R3_web_supplement.pdfPDF document, 177.8 KB |
SIM_8166-Supp-0001-SIM-18-0069.R3_web_supplement.pdf |
SIM_8166-Supp-0002-BR_web_supplement.texapplication/tex, 6.2 KB |
SIM_8166-Supp-0002-BR_web_supplement.tex |
Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.
REFERENCES
- 1Mt-Isa S, Hallgreen CE, Wang N, et al. Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2014; 23(7): 667-678.
- 2Smith MY, Benattia I, Strauss C, Bloss L, Jiang Q. Structured benefit-risk assessment across the product lifecycle: practical considerations. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017; 51(4): 501-508.
- 3 Food and Drug Administration. Structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm329758.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed April 30, 2018.
- 4 Food and Drug Administration. Benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM602885.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed October 30, 2018.
- 5European Medicines Agency. Benefit-risk methodology project. Work package 4: Benefit-risk tools and processes. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Report/2012/03/WC500123819.pdf. Published 2012. Accessed April 30, 2018.
- 6Mussen F, Salek S, Walker S. A quantitative approach to benefit-risk assessment of medicines- part 1: the development of a new model using multi-criteria decision analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007; 16(S1): S2-S15.
- 7Tervonen T, van Valkenhoef G, Buskens E, Hillege HL, Postmus D. A stochastic multicriteria model for evidence-based decision making in drug benefit-risk analysis. Statist Med. 2011; 30(12): 1419-1428.
- 8Waddingham E, Mt-Isa S, Nixon R, Ashby D. A Bayesian approach to probabilistic sensitivity analysis in structured benefit-risk assessment. Biometrical Journal. 2016; 58(1): 28-42.
- 9van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T, Zhao J, de Brock B, Hillege HL, Postmus D. Multicriteria benefit-risk assessment using network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012; 65(4): 394-403.
- 10Wang Y, Mai Y, He W. A quantitative approach for benefit-risk assessment using stochastic multi-criteria discriminatory method. Stat Biopharm Res. 2016; 8(4): 373-378.
- 11Saint-Hilary G, Cadour S, Robert V, Gasparini M. A simple way to unify multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) using a Dirichlet distribution in benefit-risk assessment. Biometrical Journal. 2017; 59(3): 567-578.
- 12Li K, Yuan SS, Wang W, et al. Periodic benefit-risk assessment using Bayesian stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis. Contemp Clin Trials. 2018; 67: 100-108.
- 13Evans SR, Follmann D. Using outcomes to analyze patients rather than patients to analyze outcomes: a step toward pragmatism in benefit: risk evaluation. Stat Biopharm Res. 2016; 8(4): 386-393.
- 14Skovlund SE. The potential role of individual-level benefit-risk assessment in treatment decision-making. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018.
- 15Costa MJ, He W, Jemiai Y, Zhao Y, Di Casoli C. The case for a Bayesian approach to benefit-risk assessment: overview and future directions. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017; 51(5): 568-574.
- 16Dunson DB. Bayesian methods for latent trait modelling of longitudinal data. Stat Methods Medical Res. 2007; 16(5): 399-415.
- 17Lee S-Y, Song X-Y. Evaluation of the Bayesian and maximum likelihood approaches in analyzing structural equation models with small sample sizes. Multivar Behav Res. 2004; 39(4): 653-686.
- 18Cooper R, Naclerio F, Allgrove J, Jimenez A. Creatine supplementation with specific view to exercise/sports performance: an update. J. Int Soc Sports Nutr. 2012; 9(1): 33.
- 19Kieburtz K, Tilley BC, Elm JJ, et al. Effect of creatine monohydrate on clinical progression patients with Parkinson disease. JAMA. 2015; 313(6): 584-593.
- 20Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
10.1017/CBO9781139174084 Google Scholar
- 21Dunson DB. Bayesian latent variable models for clustered mixed outcomes. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 2000; 62(2): 355-366.
- 22Lazarsfeld PF. Latent structure analysis. Psychol Study Sci. 1959; 3: 476-543.
- 23Dunson DB. Dynamic latent trait models for multidimensional longitudinal data. J Am Stat Assoc. 2003; 98(463): 555-563.
- 24Teixeira-Pinto A, Normand S-LT. Correlated bivariate continuous and binary outcomes: issues and applications. Statist Med. 2009; 28(13): 1753-1773.
- 25Wang J, Luo S, Li L. Dynamic prediction for multiple repeated measures and event time data: An application to parkinson's disease. Ann Appl Stat. 2017; 11(3): 1787.
- 26Wang J, Luo S. Multidimensional latent trait linear mixed model: an application in clinical studies with multivariate longitudinal outcomes. Statist Med. 2017; 36(20): 3244-3256.
- 27Thokala P, Devlin N, Marsh K, et al. Multiple criteria decision analysis for health care decision making–an introduction: report 1 of the ISPOR MCDA emerging good practices task force. Value Health. 2016; 19(1): 1-13.
- 28Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W. Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
- 29Watson SR, Buede DM. Decision Synthesis: The Principles and Practice of Decision Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1987.
- 30Clemen RT, Reilly T. Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning; 2013.
- 31Lunn D, Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N. The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Statist Med. 2009; 28(25): 3049-3067.
- 32Hornik K, Leisch F, Zeileis A. JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003); 2003; Vienna, Austria.
- 33Neal RM. MCMC using hamiltonian dynamics. In: Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Vol. 2. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2011: 113-162.
10.1201/b10905-6 Google Scholar
- 34Hoffman MD, Gelman A. The No-U-Turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo. J Mach Learn Res. 2014; 15(1): 1593-1623.
- 35Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Rubin DB. Bayesian Data Analysis. New York, NY: CRC Press; 2013.
10.1201/b16018 Google Scholar
- 36 Food and Drug Administration. Medical device innovation consortium (MDIC) patient centered benefit-risk project report. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/UCM486253.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed April 10, 2019.
- 37Tervonen T, Naci H, van Valkenhoef G, et al. Applying multiple criteria decision analysis to comparative benefit-risk assessment: choosing among statins in primary prevention. Med Decis Mak. 2015; 35(7): 859-871.
- 38Ma H, Jiang Q, Chuang-Stein C, et al. Considerations on endpoint selection, weighting determination, and uncertainty evaluation in the benefit-risk assessment of medical product. Stat Biopharm Res. 2016; 8(4): 417-425.
- 39van Valkenhoef G, Tervonen T. Entropy-optimal weight constraint elicitation with additive multi-attribute utility models. Omega. 2016; 64: 1-12.
- 40Tervonen T, Gelhorn H, Sri Bhashyam S, et al. MCDA swing weighting and discrete choice experiments for elicitation of patient benefit-risk preferences: a critical assessment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017; 26(12): 1483-1491.